03-03-2021, 12:38 PM
(03-03-2021, 01:58 AM)Dill Wrote: No. It doesn't work in your favor for two reasons:
1. First, it is a specific example of how "hyper partisan people see failure to completely agree with them as support for their opposites." In this case you are the "hyper partisan." You may have forgotten that you were accusing Nati of doing what you regularly do, as my example demonstrates.
I don't think you understand what partisan means. In this case it would apparently mean being against people who rape, murder children, set people on fire, etc. I am, you would be correct, hyper against those types of people.
Quote:2. One characteristic of Nazi dehumanization of others was their resort to dehumanizing terms--"animals," "vermin" etc. So no, I don't call people "who rape, murder children" etc. animals. Neither do others in this forum whom you claim to respect. Neither does any student/teacher of ethics outside of authoritarian/totalitarian political systems. (With you, I have to add that this reference to Nazi dehumanization does not say or imply that everyone who dehumanizes other humans in this fashion, such as you, is a Nazi.)
The refusal to dehumanize others in language is the norm for every ethics which refuses the dehumanization of others.
I do, because they are. I am not on a campaign to label them anything, I am one guy on a message board sub forum that maybe has ~40 unique users at this point (the reasons for this being amusing given the current conversation). I will absolutely label any human who engages in the type of behavior ISIS does/did on a routine basis as animals. You don't, which is certainly your prerogative, but you are clearly very comfortable with broad generalizations about other groups.
Quote:No CCP talking points. Yet another example of YOU doing what you accused Nati of doing, your "hyper partisan people see failure to completely agree with them as support for their opposites." On that same thread my views were different from Dinos, but you called me "intellectually dishonest" for failing to agree with you.
Yes, CCP talking points. When you parrot the exact same argument being spouted by the CCP that's exactly what you are doing.
Quote:If there is no point in backing your accusations with PROOF,
then there is no legitimate or ethical point in making such accusations in the first place.
People only do that when accusations are the point, not the (non-existent) proof.
Miss me with this bullshit. I can see why you like Fred, you both indulge in this same game. I gave you tons of proof in the discussion about Joy Reid. You ignored over 90% of it, because it hurt your argument, and focused on the small fraction you could slightly nitpick. Be honest, you have a massive blind spot when it comes to bad actions by people you agree with. You're infamous for it.
Quote:Accusing people who do provide proof of "spin and twist" when you cannot provide proof is just another example of spin and twist.
See above.
Quote:Here's the pattern: you make a series of unsupportable accusations.
When support is called for, you begin accusing others of your spin and twist.
Here's the pattern. You ask for proof. You get proof. You ignore proof. Then you get accused of spinning and twisting.
Quote:Thus talk of others "hyperbole" and "tinfoil hats" remains just hyperbole.
No substance whatsoever.
Again, miss me with this as it is demonstrably false. One need only look at the Rush Limbaugh thread to see you engage in exactly what you deny and me doing exactly what you claim I do not.
You're a base hypocrite and as one sided as they come. You can attempt to cover it up with pontificating posts full of irrelevancies and flowery academic language, more designed to look impressive than to inform, but at the end of the day you're a tired pedant who is blind to their own flaws and those of the people they agree with.
